Trump impeachment: Senate trial to start

Originally Posted by Mick

Again, you’re not informing me of something I already knew.

Having read this a couple of times, I think you mixed it up.
I believe you mean he [was] informing you, rather than not informing you

Either way, I didnt know, so it was informative to me.

Originally Posted by Paul

Having read this a couple of times, I think you mixed it up.
I believe you mean he [was] informing you, rather than not informing you

Either way, I didnt know, so it was informative to me.

No, it’s right what I meant. He was not telling me something new. So he couldn’t inform me on something I’d already been informed of or learned much earlier on. I was going to remove that post but Hugh had already replied so was too late.

---------- Post added at 14:39 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Hom3r

I'm predicting the yanks will vote Trump back in, and he will be spouting the illegal votes for the 3rd election in a row.

I think the Democrats may actually try invoking section 3 of Amendment 14 of the Constitution. It’s actually going to be tricky if they do because the wording isn’t specific and direct refers to the office of president.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I say tricky because words matter in the Constitution. Officer of the United States, doesn’t exactly correlate to the presidency. If Congress were to enact this, Trump could Sue in the courts.

Originally Posted by Mick

No, it’s right what I meant. He was not telling me something new. So he couldn’t inform me on something I’d already been informed of or learned much earlier on. I was going to remove that post but Hugh had already replied so was too late.

---------- Post added at 14:39 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------



I think the Democrats may actually try invoking section 3 of Amendment 14 of the Constitution. It’s actually going to be tricky if they do because the wording isn’t specific and direct refers to the office of president.



I say tricky because words matter in the Constitution. Officer of the United States, doesn’t exactly correlate to the presidency. If Congress were to enact this, Trump could Sue in the courts.

Yes, that clause specifically names senators, congressmen and electors of the POTUS and VP but doesn’t name the president. I suspect it would be fairly easy to argue at the Supreme Court that the office of president is deliberately excluded from that list. I would understand officers of the US to be cabinet positions in a president’s government rather than the president directly.

[1andrew1]

This case has damaged Trump's brand. The US has seen the Capitol Hill anti-democracy violence on its screens again and the association with Trump - rightly or wrongly - has been reinforced.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

This case has damaged Trump's brand. The US has seen the Capitol Hill anti-democracy violence on its screens again and the association with Trump - rightly or wrongly - has been reinforced.

Looks like he could be heading for bankruptcy again.

Meanwhile, this week has also seen reports that more of Trump’s business partners are trying to distance themselves from the former President. On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that real estate investment firm Vornado Realty Trust is looking to exit its partnerships with the Trump Organization, including those at two prime office buildings located in Midtown Manhattan and San Francisco’s Financial District.

Vornado is run by noted real estate investor Steven Roth, a longtime friend of Trump’s who advised the former President during his time in the White House. But the firm is reportedly concerned that Trump’s association with the properties have hindered attempts to find new buyers and lenders for the assets.

Vornado’s retreat could further exacerbate Trump’s business woes. His company’s leisure- and hospitality-focused properties have been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, and other business partners have already moved to cut ties with Trump following last month’s storming of the Capitol. Additionally, in the next few years the Trump Organization must repay more than $400 million in loans used to finance properties including Trump Tower in Manhattan, the Trump National Doral Miami golf resort in Florida, and the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

The he has possible legal woes.

On the legal front, Fulton County, Ga., prosecutors said on Wednesday that they had opened a criminal investigation into “attempts to influence” Georgia’s administration of the 2020 general election. While prosecutors did not explicitly name Trump in announcing the investigation, the probe is believed to involve his documented attempts to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” the votes needed to win the state, which President Joe Biden carried by nearly 12,000 ballots.

Trump also publicly pressured Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and reportedly contacted other state officials to investigate the former President’s baseless allegations of voter fraud and overturn the state’s election results in his favor. In letters to Raffensperger, Kemp, and other Georgia officials, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis asked that they preserve all documents and records related to the election and any attempts to influence it.

The newly launched Georgia investigation adds to Trump’s existing legal woes in New York, where both the state’s attorney general and Manhattan’s district attorney are pursuing fraud investigations related to Trump and his businesses. While the former has launched a civil probe into Trump’s business dealings, the latter’s case could lead to criminal charges.

https://fortune.com/2021/02/10/trump...oans-scandals/

[Dude111]

I heard he was aquitted,does that mean they lost?? (They tried once before also)

That depends what you believe the Dems’ goal was. For sure they will have hoped to convict him and they didn’t, so they lost on that count, however they will have known all along that getting 17 GOP senators to back them was a tall order and will no doubt have been satisfied to achieve any number of other objectives.

For a start, history will record that Donald J Trump is the only president of the United States ever to have been impeached twice. As no president has ever been convicted by the senate, impeachment by Congress is the only “official” record of a sitting president’s misdemeanours. That’s a pretty big blot on his record that won’t ever fade, unless in the long run a series of presidents do actually get convicted of anything, at which point mere impeachment will cease to seem important. So the Dems haven’t really lost on that.

Secondly their presentation in the senate, complete with all the new CCTV footage, was really shocking and whether or not it is directly associated with Trump, it is associated in the minds of many American voters with an attempt by insurrection to prevent a president-elect from taking office. As it was a Democrat president-elect, the insurrection taints the reputation of republicans (even though the vast majority of American Republican voters would not have supported this in any way). So again, they have a win there.

I think the final analysis won’t be possible until the primaries begin for 2024. At that point we will be able to see what state the Trump wing of the GOP is in, and whether there is any appetite in the party for Trump or his anointed successor to have a run at the presidency.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Chris

That depends what you believe the Dems’ goal was. For sure they will have hoped to convict him and they didn’t, so they lost on that count, however they will have known all along that getting 17 GOP senators to back them was a tall order and will no doubt have been satisfied to achieve any number of other objectives.

For a start, history will record that Donald J Trump is the only president of the United States ever to have been impeached twice. As no president has ever been convicted by the senate, impeachment by Congress is the only “official” record of a sitting president’s misdemeanours. That’s a pretty big blot on his record that won’t ever fade, unless in the long run a series of presidents do actually get convicted of anything, at which point mere impeachment will cease to seem important. So the Dems haven’t really lost on that.

Secondly their presentation in the senate, complete with all the new CCTV footage, was really shocking and whether or not it is directly associated with Trump, it is associated in the minds of many American voters with an attempt by insurrection to prevent a president-elect from taking office. As it was a Democrat president-elect, the insurrection taints the reputation of republicans (even though the vast majority of American Republican voters would not have supported this in any way). So again, they have a win there.

I think the final analysis won’t be possible until the primaries begin for 2024. At that point we will be able to see what state the Trump wing of the GOP is in, and whether there is any appetite in the party for Trump or his anointed successor to have a run at the presidency.

There's 30 odd senate seats up for grabs in 2022, that might be an early indicator.

2024 and the primaries are a long time away in politics. Sarah Palin seemed to be a major player in 2009 and the 2010 mid-terms were a success for the brand of the Republican Party she was a figurehead for. However, her power diminished before 2012.

Trump is obviously a much bigger figure having been President but will his hold on the base last until 2023-2024? Without the platform of being President, he won't be as omnipresent and he faces a number of personal legal and financial problems at the moment.

You would make him favourite for the Republican nomination still but even then Republicans might prioritise getting Biden (or whoever runs as the Democratic nominee assuming Biden does one term) out of the White House and as an electoral prospect for the General Election he wouldn't look great. He has lost one election and the aftermath of that wouldn't have done him any favours in the eyes of Independents - he just isn't popular. So will the Republican base, out of personal loyalty to Trump, give an unpopular election loser another shot? Surely after the dust is settled there will be enough of them who want to move on.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

2024 and the primaries are a long time away in politics. Sarah Palin seemed to be a major player in 2009 and the 2010 mid-terms were a success for the brand of the Republican Party she was a figurehead for. However, her power diminished before 2012.

Trump is obviously a much bigger figure having been President but will his hold on the base last until 2023-2024? Without the platform of being President, he won't be as omnipresent and he faces a number of personal legal and financial problems at the moment.

You would make him favourite for the Republican nomination still but even then Republicans might prioritise getting Biden (or whoever runs as the Democratic nominee assuming Biden does one term) out of the White House and as an electoral prospect for the General Election he wouldn't look great. He has lost one election and the aftermath of that wouldn't have done him any favours in the eyes of Independents - he just isn't popular. So will the Republican base, out of personal loyalty to Trump, give an unpopular election loser another shot? Surely after the dust is settled there will be enough of them who want to move on.

I think you're right - it's attracting the non-aligned votes that is key and Trump won't be able to do this.

If I had to bet I still think he would win the nomination.

That's assuming he even wants it. I think he might prefer to have rallies and attention without the actual job.

[Sephiroth]

If he was minded to stand again, it would be after seeing how the land lies in terms of Democrats' performance. He'll want to have majorities in Congress so he can govern according to his wishes.

All that depends on him not having any felony convictions.

Originally Posted by pip08456

There's 30 odd senate seats up for grabs in 2022, that might be an early indicator.

Yup - quite a lot are solid Republican/Democrat, but there are a couple of Senate seats that could go either way.

Arizona (Mark Kelly) - currently Democrats, could go either way
Florida (Marco Rubio) - currently Republican, probably stay that way
Georgia (Raphael Warnock) - just became Democrats, could go either way
Nevada (Catherine Cortez Mato) - Democrats, could go either way
New Hampshire (Maggie Hassan) - Democrats, could go either way
North Carolina (Richard Burr*) - Republican, could go either way
Ohio (Rob Portman*) - Republican, probably stay that way
Pennsylvania (Pat Toomey*) - Republican, could go either way
Wisconsin (Ron Johnson) - Republican, could go either way

So, out of potentially 9 Senate seats, the thinking (currently) is that 2 will stay Republican (Florida & Ohio), and the other 7 could make the difference to either side to be in the majority.

Could be exciting!

*retiring (all Republicans)

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

2024 and the primaries are a long time away in politics. Sarah Palin seemed to be a major player in 2009 and the 2010 mid-terms were a success for the brand of the Republican Party she was a figurehead for. However, her power diminished before 2012.

Trump is obviously a much bigger figure having been President but will his hold on the base last until 2023-2024? Without the platform of being President, he won't be as omnipresent and he faces a number of personal legal and financial problems at the moment.

You would make him favourite for the Republican nomination still but even then Republicans might prioritise getting Biden (or whoever runs as the Democratic nominee assuming Biden does one term) out of the White House and as an electoral prospect for the General Election he wouldn't look great. He has lost one election and the aftermath of that wouldn't have done him any favours in the eyes of Independents - he just isn't popular. So will the Republican base, out of personal loyalty to Trump, give an unpopular election loser another shot? Surely after the dust is settled there will be enough of them who want to move on.

I don't think Trump will run again, he can't rebuild his reputation and the presidency doesn't pay. He'll be better off writing a book and trying to save his businesses.

I also don't think there will be a continuity Trump successor, he was a one off.

Neither will there be a more centrist candidate, that (in the form of Jeb Bush) was rejected last time out.

No, I think Cruz will take a run at it, and some completely out of left field.

I think Cruz would attempt to run as continuity Trump. Cruz couldn't have pandered more to Trump if he tried.

Trump himself was at least his own man, even if it was ego-driven. If Trump is the school bully then Cruz is the little weasel who follows him around, sucks up and endures whatever abuse he gets (Trump called his wife ugly) so long as he still gets to hang around him.